2010_v 7_pii
Post on 20-Feb-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
1/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
2/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
3/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
4/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
5/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
6/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
7/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
8/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
9/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
10/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
11/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
12/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
13/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
14/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
15/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
16/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
17/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
18/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
19/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
20/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
21/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
22/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
23/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
24/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
25/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
26/148
341FULJIT KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.[DR B S CHAUHAN J ]
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 342
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
27/148
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
20.05.2010, asked the respondents to explain this aspect andfile an affidavit of the Administrator of the Authority. In responsethereto, an Affidavit had been filed by the Chief Administrator,Greater Mohali Development Authority, explaining the entireposition in respect of the allotment and recovery of duesfurnishing all details and according to this Affidavit, the moneyis being recovered from all defaulters including Shri D.S.Laungia along with interest.
28. In view of the above, we find no force in the appeal, itlacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to
costs.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.v.
G.S. RANDHAWA(Civil Appeal No. 3392 of 2007)
JUNE 3, 2010
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965:
Allotment of plot Liability of allottee to pay additional
price HELD: In view of the decision of the Court in Smt.Fuljit Kaur* the judgment of the High Court is set aside Thedemand notice is upheld The appellants are entitled to makerecovery in accordance with law.
*Smt. Fuljit Kaur vs. state of Punjab & Ors. [2010] 7 SCR317, relied on.
Case Law Reference:
[2010] 7 SCR 317 relied on para 2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3392 of 2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.2006 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil WritPetition No. 2800 of 1992.
Vijay Hansaria, (A.C.) and Ashok Mathur for the appearingparties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. We have heard Ms. Rachna
Joshi Issar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In spiteof notice, respondent did not enter appearance. We requested
342
343STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. G.S. RANDHAWA[DR B S CHAUHAN J ]
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 344
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
28/148
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Sh. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel for the respondent,to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.
2. For the reasons recorded in Civil Appeal No. 5292 of
2004 (Smt. Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) decidedon this date, the appeal stands allowed. Judgment and Orderof the High Court dated 06.12.2006 is set aside and theDemand Notice is upheld. The appellant is entitled to makerecovery in accordance with law.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.v.
COL. KULDEEP SINGH(Civil Appeal No. 3546 of 2007)
JUNE 3, 2010
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965:
Allotment of plot Liability of allottee to pay additional
price HELD: In view of the decision of the Court in Smt.Fuljit Kaur* the judgment of the High Court is set aside Thedemand notice is upheld The appellants are entitled to makerecovery in accordance with law.
*Smt. Fuljit Kaur vs. state of Punjab & Ors.[2010] 7 SCR317, relied on.
Case Law Reference:
[2010] 7 SCR 317 relied on para 2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3546 of 2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.2006 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil WritPetition No. 18110 of 1991.
Vijay Hansaria, (A.C.) and Ashok Mathur for the appearingparties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. We have heard Ms. Rachna
Joshi Issar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In spiteof notice, respondent did not enter appearance. We requested
344
345STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. COL. KULDEEPSINGH [DR B S CHAUHAN J ]
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 346
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
29/148
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
SINGH [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Sh. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel for the respondent,to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.
2. For the reasons recorded in Civil Appeal No. 5292 of
2004 (Smt. Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) decidedon this date, the appeal stands allowed. Judgment and Orderof the High Court dated 06.12.2006 is set aside and theDemand Notice is upheld. The appellant is entitled to makerecovery in accordance with law.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS.v.
UGRASEN (D) BY LRS. & ORS.(Civil Appeal No. 973 of 2007)
JUNE 3, 2010
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Urban Development:
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 s. 41
Control by State Government State Government-revisional Authority under the Statute, if could take upon itselfthe task of lower statutory authority Held: Higher authorityin hierarchy or appellate or revisional authority cannotexercise the power of statutory authority nor can directstatutory authority to act in a particular manner Such orderwould be unenforceable Aggrieved person can prefer
appeal before appellate authority and against the said orderhe may file revision application before State Government However, State Government cannot pass order without givingopportunity of hearing to the person adversely affected Onfacts, State Government directly entertained application forallotment of land without hearing the other party ChiefMinister directed allotment of land in favour of one of theapplicants Thus, order passed by State Government stood
vitiated since it took the task of the Development Authorityupon itself It was a case of colourable exercise of power Chief Minister had no competence to deal with the subject More so, land was allotted contrary to the Land Policy LandAcquisition Act, 1894.
Interim order Order passed or action taken by statutoryauthority in contravention of interim order Enforceability of Held: Is a nullity On facts, interim order passed by HighCourt was in force and it restrained the Authorities to make
346
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
30/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
31/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
32/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
33/148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R.355 356MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. v.UGRASEN (D) BYLRS. & ORS.
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
34/148
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
AIR 1997 SC 1236 Relied on. Para 48
AIR 1970 SC 898 Relied on. Para 49
AIR 1977 SC 781 Relied on. Para 49
AIR 1999 SC 2284 Relied on. Para 49
AIR 2003 SC 718 Relied on. Para 50
(2004) 7 SCC 166 Relied on. Para 50
JT 2010 (3) SC 510 Relied on. Para 50
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 973of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.07.2003 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Allahabad in C.W.P. No. 6644 of 1989.
WITH
C.A. No. 974 of 2007.R.P. Bhatt, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Reena Singh, Dr. Vipin
Gupta, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Shailender Paul for the Appellants.
Debal Kumar Banerji, Pramod Swarup, Ruby Singh Ahuja,Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Kamlendra Mishra, Manoj Dwivedi,Vandana Mishra, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Anuvrat Sharma
for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. Both these appeals have beenpreferred by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgmentand order of the Allahabad High Court dated 22nd July, 2003passed in C.M.W.P. No.6644 of 1989 by which the High Court
has allowed the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1-Ugrasenquashing the allotment of land made in favour of appellant-Manohar Lal and further directed to make the allotment of landin favour of the said respondent-Ugrasen.
(2005) 12 SCC 508 Relied on. Para 12
AIR 1991 SC 1902 Relied on. Para 13
AIR 2008 SC 870 Relied on. Para 14
(2006) 1 SCC 667 Relied on. Para 15
AIR 1970 SC 1896 Relied on. Para 16
AIR 1984 SC 322 Relied on. Para 17
AIR 1995 SC 2390 Relied on. Para 18
AIR 2006 SC 898 Relied on. Para 19AIR 1971 SC 97 Relied on. Para 20
(2001) 6 SCC 260 Relied on. Para 21
AIR 1967 SC 1386 Relied on. Para 23
AIR 1996 SC 135 Relied on. Para 24
AIR 2007 SC 1386 Relied on. Para 25
AIR 1996 SC 2005 Relied on. Para 26
AIR 2008 SC 901 Relied on. Para 27
AIR 1953 SC 235 Relied on. Para 29
AIR 1984 SC 186 Relied on. Para 30
AIR 1991 SC 409 Relied on. Para 30
AIR 2010 SC 475 Relied on. Para 31
AIR 1996 SC 2744 Relied on. Para 32
AIR 1980 SC 319 Relied on. Para 42
AIR 1993 SC 852 Relied on. Para 47
(1994) 6 SCC 620 Relied on. Para 47
(1995) 1 SCC 242 Relied on. Para 47
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
35/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
36/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
37/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
38/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
39/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
40/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
41/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
42/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
43/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
44/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
45/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
46/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
47/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
48/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
49/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
50/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
51/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
52/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
53/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
54/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
55/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
56/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
57/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
58/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
59/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
60/148
AA
409BHANWARLAL DUGAR & ORS. v. BRIDHICHANDPANNALAL & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
and remit the matter to the First Appellate Court (AppellateCourt of the Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati) for hearingthe appeal afresh for its disposal in accordance with law It is
CHUNNI LALv.
STATE OF U P
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 410
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
61/148
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
B
C
the appeal afresh for its disposal in accordance with law. It isneedless to observe that the Appellate Court shall re-hear the
matter and decide all the issues that arise for its considerationby properly re-appreciating the evidence available on record.The appeal shall be heard and disposed of within six monthsfrom today.
11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed without any orderas to costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
STATE OF U.P.(Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2006)
JULY 5, 2010
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s.302 Accused firing at his uncle causing his death Conviction by trial court Affirmed by High Court Pleas ofabsence of motive for the crime, evidence of interestedwitnesses only and delay in filing FIR and startinginvestigation HELD: Are not tenable Motive for the crimehas been established because of the development of theevents which entirely defeated the chances of the accused toinherit the property of his deceased uncle The eye-witnesses being the sons of the deceased, their presence at
the place of occurrence at the relevant time was usual andexpected They have given a vivid account of the incidentand the manner in which it occurred Their evidence couldnot be shaken by defence in cross-examination The ocularevidence fully corroborates the medical evidence The delaycaused due to reasonable factual situation cannot destroyprosecution case nor would it create any suspicion onprosecution case In the instant case, the entire area beingdacoits infested area, the police station being far away fromthe place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer having beenrequired to attend the court at the relevant time, the court beingat a distance from the police station, there is well reasonedand proper explanation for the delay both in lodging the FIRand starting the investigation Accused has been rightlyconvicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life u/s 302
Criminal law Motive Evidence Testimony of relatedwitnesses Delay in lodging FIR and starting investigation.
410
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
62/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
63/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
64/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
65/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
66/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
67/148
AA
423CHUNNI LAL v.STATE OF U.P.[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
20. All the aforesaid discussions and facts, therefore, leadto one and the only conclusion that the appellant is guilty of theoffence alleged against him.
VINOD SETHv.
DEVINDER BAJAJ AND ANR.(Ci il A l N 4891 f 2010)
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 424
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
68/148
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
B
21. In our considered opinion, the accused has been rightlyconvicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC. This appeal,therefore, has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
(Civil Appeal No. 4891 of 2010)
JULY 05, 2010
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: s.52 Suit for specificperformance of oral collaboration agreement for developmentof residential suit premises No application by plaintiff for
interim relief High Court directing plaintiff to furnish anundertaking to pay Rs.25 lakhs to defendants in the event oflosing case observing that prima facie case not in favour ofplaintiff and due to heavy dockets in courts early disposal ofsuit was not possible Propriety of Held: There is noprovision in the Code or any substantive law which enable theCourt to issue a direction to a plaintiff in a suit to file anundertaking that in the event of not succeeding in the suit, he
would pay damages to the defendant Such power cannotbe traced even in s.151 It is an order in terrorem Orderpunishing a litigant on the ground that the court is not able todecide the case expeditiously is unwarranted, and beyond itspower In the facts and circumstances, suit propertyexempted from the operation of s.52 and defendants grantedliberty to deal with the property in any manner they may deem
fit, inspite of the pendency of the suit subject to their furnishingsecurity of Rs.3 lakhs Doctrine of lis pendens SpecificRelief Act, 1963 s.14(1)(b) and (d) Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 ss.35, 35A, 151, Order 25 r.1 Damages Undertaking Judgment/Order Order in terrorem.
Costs: Absence of effective provisions for costs Needfor reform The provision for costs as envisaged in ss.35,
35A, 35B have either become infructuous on account ofinflation or are seldom invoked Lack of appropriate
424
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
69/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
70/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
71/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
72/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
73/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
74/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
75/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
76/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
77/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
78/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
79/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
80/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
81/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
82/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
83/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
84/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
85/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
86/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
87/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
88/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
89/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
90/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
91/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
92/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
93/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
94/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
95/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
96/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
97/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
98/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
99/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
100/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
101/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
102/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
103/148
A
B
A
B
495INDU BHUSHAN DWIVEDI v.STATE OFJHARKHAND AND ANR. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of thisorder. If the High Court still feels that the adverse remarks inthe Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant for the year1988-1989, 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1996-1997 should beconsidered, then such report(s) shall be communicated to him
and he should be given an opportunity to make appropriaterepresentation. While making fresh recommendation for
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.v.
S.K. NURUL AMIN(Civil Appeal No. 1961 of 2006)
JULY 05, 2010[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 496
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
104/148
C
D
E
F
G
H
C
imposing the particular punishment, the High Court is expectedto take into consideration the good as well as adverse recordof the appellant. The State Government shall pass appropriateorder within three months from the date of receipt of freshrecommendation from the High Court. The parties are left to
bear their own cost.B.B.B. Appeal allowed.
[ ]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s.72(1) Interpretation of Grant of stage carriage permit Power of State TransportAuthority to grant stage carriage permits with modification bycurtailing a part of the routes applied for Held: The State
Transport Authority is not bound to grant a stage carriagepermit as sought It can refuse to grant such permit or grantpermit with such modifications as deemed fit by it Curtailment of a route would be a modification ascontemplated under s.72(1) State Transport Authority is notprohibited from curtailment in regard to portion of the routeapplied for, for any valid reason So long as the reason forthe modification is not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable,the order of the Authority cannot be interfered with The onlyrestriction on the power of the Authority is that it cannot granta permit for a route not specified in the application.
Respondent made two applications to the StateTransport Authority, West Bengal for grant of permanentstage carriage permit. The first application was for a
permit for the route Dhulian Bazar to Kolkata (viaRaghunathganj and Barasat) and the second applicationwas for a permit for the route Raghunathganj to Kolkata(via Barasat).
The State Transport Authority, West Bengal offeredpermits for the routes Dhulian Bazar to Barasat andRaghunathganj to Barasat respectively, by curtailing/
496
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
105/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
106/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
107/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
108/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
109/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
110/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
111/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
112/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
113/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
114/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
115/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
116/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
117/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
118/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
119/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
120/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
121/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
122/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
123/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
124/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
125/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
126/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
127/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
128/148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R.
A
B
A
B
545 546RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. &ANR. ETC.
same manner as the earlier Notification dated April 16,1999. [Para 43] [567-G-H; 568-A-B]
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (1974) 2SCC 831; Capital Multi-purpose Co-operative Society Bhopaland Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1967) 3 SCR 329; A.
Sanjeevi Naidu, Etc. v. State of Madras and Anr. (1970) 1SCC 443; M/s. Nehru Motor Transport Co-operative SocietyLtd. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.AIR 1963 SC1098; Afsar Jahan Begum (Smt) and Ors. v. State Of M.P.
d O (1996) 8 SCC 38 C P C M S i M
1994 Suppl.(3)
SCC 460 Referred to. Para 33
(2001) 5 SCC 762 Referred to. Para 33
AIR 1957 SC 676 Referred to. Para 39
(1952) 1 SCR 612 Relied on. Para 41
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5951 of 2002.
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
129/148
C
D
E
F
G
H
C
D
E
F
G
H
and Ors.(1996) 8 SCC 38; C.P.C. Motor Service, Mysore v.State of Mysore and Anr.AIR 1966 SC 1661; Karnataka StateRoad Transport Corporation v. Ashrafulla Khan and Ors.
(2002) 2 SCC 560, referred to.Case Law Reference:
(1985) 4 SCC169 Referred to.Para 11,12, 33,
(1992) 2 SCC 620 Referred to. Para 14, 15, 16,23, 32, 33
(1974) 2 SCC 831 Referred to. Para 21
(1967) 3 SCR 329 Referred to. Para 21
(1970) 1 SCC 443 Referred to. Para 21
AIR 1959 SC 308 Referred to. Para 21, 35
AIR 1963 SC 1098 Referred to. Para 21
(1996) 8 SCC 38 Referred to. Para 26
AIR 1966 SC 1661 Referred to. Para 26
(2002) 2 SCC 560 Referred to. Para 26
(1985) 4 SCC 557 Relied on. Para 30
(1974) 2 SCC 750 Relied on. Para 31
(1960) 3 SCR 742 Relied on. Para 32
From the Judgment & Order dated 23.4.2002 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24070 of 2000.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 4894, 4895 of 2010.
Dinesh Dwivedi, Nagendra Rai, P.N. Gupta for theAppellants.
Ratnakar Dash, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, Addl. A.G., Raj Kumar
Gupta, Rajeev Kr. Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Vandana Mishra,Pramod Swarup, Rani Chhabra, Garima Prashad, Neha Goyalfor the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Delay condoned and leave granted inSLP(C) No.820 of 2003. Leave also granted in SLP (C) No.21707 of 2002. The applicants in the I.As. for impleadment areallowed to intervene.
Introduction
2. Five writ petitions by various operators came to be filedbefore High Court of Judicature at Allahabad questioning theNotification dated April 15, 2000 issued by the State of U.P.rescinding the earlier Notification dated April 16, 1999 and for
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
130/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
131/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
132/148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R.
A
B
A
B
RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. &ANR. ETC. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
553 554
11/89, 12/89, 13/89,14/89, 16/89, 17/89,18/89, 19/89, Shall beallowed to operatetheir buses alongwithU.P.S.R.T.C. on theroute namely,Saharanpur-Loni Via-S h a m a l i - B a r a u t -Baghpat -Marg ina lBandh Road-ISBTDelhi.
Provided that thepermit Holders sub-clauses (ii) and (iii)above shall get theirpermits counter-signed by the StateGovernment ofHaryana for plyingtheir buses in the
State of Haryana.
18 The Notification provided that the UPSRTC and any
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
133/148
C
D
E
F
G
H
C
D
E
F
G
H
(ii) holding permitnumbers P.S.R.T.P.
303/89, P.S.T.P. 304/89 and, P.S.T.P. 305/89, shall be allowed tooperate their busesalongwith U.P.S.R.T.C. on the Routenamely Meerut-Chandigarh via Baraut-S h a m l i - G a n g o h -
SaharanpurSarsawa-YamunaAmbala; and
(iii) holding permitnumbers 168/94, 169/94, 170/94, 171/94,172/94, 173/94, 222/94, 233/94, 23/95, 24/95, 25/95, 739/89, 242/94, 764/90, 787/90,772/90, 800/90, 784/90, shall be allowed tooperate their busesalongwith U.P.S.R.T.C. on the routenamely :- Saharanpur-Karnal via Jandhera-
Rampur-Gangoh Nea Yamuna Bridge :
18. The Notification provided that the UPSRTC and anyother person likely to be affected by the proposed modificationmay make representations within 30 days from the date of
publication of the Notification in the Gazette and that therepresentations so received will be heard by the HearingAuthority Shri Zamiruddin, Special Secretary and AdditionalLegal Rememberancer, Uttar Pradesh.
19. In pursuance thereof various representations werereceived. The Hearing Authority after hearing the concernedparties who made the representations passed an order on
October 11, 1999 approving the notified proposed modificationand the objections presented by the UPSRTC and otherobjectors were dismissed.
20. The State Government, however, by a Notificationdated April 15, 2000 in exercise of the powers under Section102 of 1988 Act read with Section 21 of General Clauses Act,1897 rescinded the Notification dated April 16, 1999.
Main submissions of the parties
21. Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel led thearguments on behalf of the appellants. He argued that it wasnot open to the State Government to withdraw the Notificationdated April 16, 1999 after it had been approved by the HearingAuthority by his order dated October 11, 1999. According to
him, the order passed by the Hearing Authority on October 11,
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
134/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
135/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
136/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
137/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
138/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
139/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
140/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
141/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
142/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
143/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
144/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
145/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
146/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
147/148
-
7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii
148/148
top related